waffledave
waffledave, from hf
It was 100% boarding... It seems people here think that it needs to be from behind to be boarding or something.
Clayton Stoner hits Pacioretty. Patches injured on the play.[MOD WARNING IN THE OP ]
- Thread starter Samkow
- Start date
I would be willing to say it was 110% boarding. Look at how Max Patch hit the boards, his head was the principle point of impact. That play is exactly what the NHL is trying to get rid of
It was a legal hit. Pacioretty wasn't paying attention on the ice when he needs to be, thus putting himself in a bad position. He didn't brace himself to get hit or acknowledge the hit was coming and simply stood there. Sucks he got injured but you need to be aware of your surroundings when on the ice.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
He had his arms extended and stick horizontal, perfectly in the middle of Max's numbers when the impact with the boards happened though, so it's obviously a little more complex than simply how they were oriented when their shoulders made first contact.
Of course it's more complex, but to say that he hit him from behind, or that Stoner was staring at his numbers, is just not true. When contact was made, it was on his shoulder. Sometimes hits can go bad. I don't think this was some perfect hit, but I don't think it was suspension worthy.
It's been said already. Patches exposed himself by admiring his pass. In real time that hit wasn't even a full second after the pass. And to top it off Patches had his shoulder bit as the principal contact. It's shady that Stoner didn't keep driving into the boards but at worst this should've been two minutes.
That said he's one of my favorite forwards outside the Ducks so I hope he's okay.
That said he's one of my favorite forwards outside the Ducks so I hope he's okay.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Apparently the NHL doesn't agree. This wasn't a hit from behind, and according to the NHL it wasn't even late.
And really? His head was the principal point of impact? You seem to be suggesting he was driven head first into the boards. Stoner made contact with his shoulder. That's the key point here. He didn't hit him in the numbers, and he didn't come in up high and drive his head into the glass.
The onus is on the person giving the hit and not receiving it. The textbook definition of boarding is
Note: a check of shove of a defenseless opponent violently in to the boards
The other element in boarding is distance from the boards for the hit to be worse.
[nhl]188666[/nhl]
As far as the principal point of contact? Homer Hayward in the video in the OP confirms it and even mentions how his helmet went in to the boards and the worry of a concussion.
A ref of the NHL missing is a call has zero creedence on whether something is actually a penalty or not. The Wheel of Justice joke didn't come out of nowhere
post sojourn edit
Boarding has zero to do with the point of contact with the player delivering the hit. The spirit of the penalty is where the player is relation to the boards, is player being hit defenseless, and the degree of the hit
KCC
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2007
- 18,352
- 9,275
Hit was fine. It wasn't boarding as he was hit shoulder to shoulder. And it wasn't interference. Not Stoners fault that Pacioretty was admiring his pass. If he hadn't been admiring, he wouldn't have been off balance and had the weight distribution of a rag doll. The term keeping your head on a swivel was never more relevant than on this play. Hit was fine. Patches learned a lesson.
Edgy
Registered User
- Nov 30, 2009
- 3,848
- 3,719
Patches wasn't hit from behind.He was facing the blue line at the time he was hit.
Had Stoner eased up on the pushing once he saw Pacioretty's body turn towards the board as a result of the hit, instead of continuing with full force and extending his arms fully, this wouldn't have been as bad.
Normally when a player goes to check a guy who's as far away from Patches from the boards, they settle for a shoulder on shoulder hit because if you follow through with the cross check/push motion like Stoner did, they almost always result in a cross check/boarding penalty being called.
Both Stoner and Pacioretty are at fault here, one was caught looking the wrong way and the other was a little overzealous with his check.
You also left out the part that says:
"However, in determining whether such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered."
Pacioretty wasn't in a defenseless position. He wasn't turned towards the boards or anything like that. He simply wasn't paying attention.
That has NOTHING to do with boarding, whatsoever!!! You can get penalized for boarding via a shoulder to shoulder hit!!
Kunta Kinte
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2011
- 2,922
- 955
Well, if I learned something from this thread. Its that the majority of people here never been a on a real hockey team. I knew that, but it show further than nobody played to decent level.
Its a textbook boarding.
Its a textbook boarding.
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
I think the problem here is most people seem to think that boarding is only when you're hit from behind.
If I hit you head on 5 feet from the boards and you go flying into them, it's boarding. Even if I hit you from the front.
If I hit you head on 5 feet from the boards and you go flying into them, it's boarding. Even if I hit you from the front.
The part that made it most dangerous was where it was on the ice, being 3 feet from the boards. I'm not upset about the hit, sucks that he got hurt. Just think a player should be able to recognize where another one is on the ice and choose not to hit a vulnerable player.
Part Pacioretty's fault, part Stoner's fault and the outcome was accidental imo. Just need more respect for players safety in the league, very few gentlemen left in the sport.
Part Pacioretty's fault, part Stoner's fault and the outcome was accidental imo. Just need more respect for players safety in the league, very few gentlemen left in the sport.
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,092
- 9,722
there is nothing late about the hit, not even a second elapses from the clock once pacrioretty makes the pass.
maybe a board, but pacrioretty was stupid to be admiring his pass like that instead of bracing for a hit
maybe a board, but pacrioretty was stupid to be admiring his pass like that instead of bracing for a hit
Edgy
Registered User
- Nov 30, 2009
- 3,848
- 3,719
You should also pay attention to the bold part. The check was by no means unavoidable, nor did Stoner have to follow through with a cross check motion. Pacioretty's indeed wasn't paying attention but Stoner's decision to follow the shoulder hit with a cross check was dangerous and completely avoidable.
D0ctorCool
Registered User
Almost 10 pages for a missed 2 min penalty. I wonder if this thread even existed if that hit didn't cause an injury to a player on a canadian team.
digmor crusher
Registered User
- Jul 11, 2009
- 1,266
- 270
Is there a rule in the rulebook that says admiring your pass is illegal? Who cares what he was doing, he hit a player in a vulnerable position 3 feet from the boards sending his head into the boards, exactly the type of thing the league is trying to get rid of. To think otherwise is ridiculous or ignorant. I would suspend him a game for sure.
Do Make Say Think
& Yet & Yet
- Jun 26, 2007
- 51,166
- 9,908
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Yes, I'm aware of what boarding is. What I was saying was that this isn't exactly the type of play the NHL is trying to get rid of. If it were they would be suspending him. Judging by the NHL's lack of discipline, they probably feel that this didn't deserve more than a 2 minute minor.
They don't want this type of play anymore than they want high sticks, or trips, or interference plays. Just because it's a penalty(assuming it would have been) doesn't mean the NHL is specifically against this type of hit. It just means they are against penalties in general.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Common sense. Not to mention it's putting yourself in a vulnerable position by not being ready to receive a check.
No, I'm not saying that excuses Stoner, but it does put some of the responsibility on Patches. Patches was eligible to be hit, and he needs to be aware of that fact. A player needs to be prepared to get hit after making a pass.
